RAJINDERA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. versus PREM MAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 300 · Decided: 23-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJINDERA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
PREM MAI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 2007 
B 
(A.K. MA THUR AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.) 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
s. 144-Application for restitution-Suit for declaration and possession 
C ultimately culminating in favour of defendant-However, during pendency of 
suit, plaintiff gifted suit iand to a College Trust and on court's direction 
receiver took possession thereof-Restitution application filed by defendant 
dismissed by courts below-Meanwhile defendant entering into an agreement 
for sale with respondent no. 2-Since agreement was not acted upon, suit 
D filed by R-2-Legal heirs of appellant also filing a suit-Interim order of 
status quo passed in the proceedings-Held: View taken by High Court in 
restitution application cannot be sustained and is set aside-Ordinarily, 
defendant-appellant would have been entitled to possession, but because of 
interim order of status quo, possession of suit land shall be subject to orders 
passed in those proceedings. 
E 
Administration of Justice: 
Speedy disposal of cases-Court expressing anguish at the delay in 
disposal of cases in law courts-Observation made that authorities concerned 
should do the needful in the matter urgently to ensure speedy disposal of 
F cases. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1307 of2001. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 06.09.1999 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Execution Second Appeal No. 870 of 1976. 
Uma Datta for the Appellants. 
Nikhil Nayyar for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
I-I 
300 
RAJINDERA SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. PREM MAI 
301 
ORDER 
I. This appeal by special leave has been filed by Rajindra Singh, (since 
deceased) whose legal representatives have been brought on record, against 
the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 
dated 16th September, 1999 in Execution Second Appeal No. 870/1976 whereby 
A 
the Second Appeal filed by the defendant-appellant has been dismissed. 
B 
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Prem Mai and 
Sudha Mai filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit land in the 
Trial Court being Suit No. 487/57. The said suit was decreed against the 
appellant herein on 21.9.63. Aggrieved against that decree, the appellant-
defendant preferred an appeal which was allowed on 16.4.64 and the judgment C 
and decree passed by the Trial Court· was reversed by the First Appellant 
Court. The First Appellant Court was of the view that the defendant-appellant 
was in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute since before the 
commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, 
and the suit was barred by time in view of Section 180 U.P. Tenancy Act, and D 
hence the defendant had become a Sirdar. 
3. Aggrieved against that, the respondent herein preferred Second Appeal 
before the High Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.2.1971 
and the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court was affirmed. It appears 
that during the pendency of the suit the Trial Court had appointed a receiver E 
(one Pitamber Singh) who took possession of the suit land. Also, Prem Mai 
and Sudha Mai purported to gift the suit land to the D.A. V. College Trust. 
After the suit was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the said 
dismissal was affirmed by the High Court, the question arose about restitution 
of the land in question to the defendant-appellant under Section 144 C.P.C. F 
However, by order dated 13.8.75 the restitution application was rejected. 
Aggrieved against that order, the matter was taken up in first appeal which 
was dismissed on 2.4. 76 and then to the High Court in second appeal which 
was dismissed on 6.9.99. All the courts having dismissed the restitution 
proceedings, the appellant is before us by way of the present appeal. 
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the 
record. 
5. From the bare facts it is apparent that the suit against the appellant 
was dismissed by the First Appellate Court which held that the appellant is 
G 
the Sirdar of the land in question, and that judgment has been affirmed by H 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A the High Court on.10.2. 71 in S.A.2.15 of L964,. which .order became finaL Hence 
in the ordinary course the appellant would be entitled to possessfon of the 
suit land: Therefore, we are of the opinion' that tile· view ta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.